Back
1992 Supreme(All) 537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. D. DUBEY, VIRENDRA SARAN
NANHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Cri. Misc. III Bail Application 792 Of 1992
Decided On : 09/19/1992
The principle of parity in granting bail is not an absolute rule and cannot be applied blindly. The court must examine the facts and circumstances of each case individually to determine whether the accused's case is distinguishable from that of the co-accused who was granted bail.
Headnote:
BAIL - PARITY - PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY - APPLICABILITY - CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH BAIL CAN BE GRANTED ON GROUND OF PARITY - DISCLOSURE OF REJECTION OF BAIL APPLICATION OF CO-ACCUSED - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an accused in a murder case, filed a third bail application after the bail applications of his co-accused were granted by different judges. The single judge referred the question of whether an accused is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity to a larger bench.
Finding of the Court:
1. The principle of parity in granting bail is not an absolute rule and cannot be applied blindly. 2. The court must examine the facts and circumstances of each case individually to determine whether the accused's case is distinguishable from that of the co-accused who was granted bail. 3. Factors to be considered include the nature and gravity of the offence, the role played by the accused, the likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence, and the possibility of the accused repeating the offence. 4. In exceptional cases, a judge may depart from the principle of parity if the conscience of the judge revolts in granting bail. 5. It is not necessary for an accused to disclose in his bail application that the bail application of a co-accused has been rejected previously.
Issues: 1. Whether an accused is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity? 2. Whether it is necessary for an accused to disclose in his bail application that the bail application of a co-accused has been rejected previously?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of parity in granting bail is not an absolute rule and cannot be applied blindly. The court must examine the facts and circumstances of each case individually to determine whether the accused's case is distinguishable from that of the co-accused who was granted bail. 2. Factors to be considered include the nature and gravity of the offence, the role played by the accused, the likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence, and the possibility of the accused repeating the offence. 3. In exceptional cases, a judge may depart from the principle of parity if the conscience of the judge revolts in granting bail. 4. It is not necessary for an accused to disclose in his bail application that the bail application of a co-accused has been rejected previously.
Final Decision: The court answered the questions referred to it as follows: 1. If on examination of a given case, it transpires that the case of the applicant before the court is identically similar to the accused, on facts and circumstances who has been bailed out, then the desirability of consistency will require that such an accused should also be released on bail. (Exceptional cases as discussed above apart). 2. As regards the second part of the question, the answer is that it is not at all necessary for an accused to state in his bail application that the bail application of a co-accused has been rejected previously.
( 1 ) IN the third bail application moved by the petitioner for bail in case Crime No. 53 of 1989 under Section 302, I. P. C. of P. S. Ganj, district Rampur Honble N. L. Ganguli, J. has referred the following question to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement: whether an accused is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of party by moving a second or third bail application in a circumstance that at a later date a co-accused of the same criminal case with a similar role was granted bail by the another Honble Judge before whom with out disclosing the fact that the bail application of another co-accused with similar role had already been rejected, by another Bench, bail was granted.
( 2 ) THE short facts relevant for the decision of the aforesaid question are as under:a First Information Report was lodged against Iqbal, Dildar Khan, Khursheed and Nanha at 11. 10 a. m. on 9/10/1989 in the above mentioned police station. Khursheed and Dildar had moved application No. 1865 of 1991 for bail. This application was rejected by Honble V. N. Mehrotra, J. Nanha also moved first bail application which was rejected on 7/12/1991. The second application which was rejected on 7/12/1991. The second application moved by Khursheed, Dildar and Nanha were rejected. Khusheed was granted bail on the ground of age in the third attempt.
( 3 ) IN the third bail application moved on behalf of Dildar, bail was granted by Honble V. N. Mehrotra, J. Thereafter, Iqbal Husain Khan was also granted bail by Honble B. P. Singh, J. A prayer was made that the applicant be also granted bail on the ground of parity. The Honble Single Judge referred to two judgments of this Court, namely, Shobharam v. State of U. P. and Sayed Khan v. State of U. P. 2. The Honble Judge is of the view that the aforesaid two decisions are taking contrary view about parity in granting of bail and this matter should be set up at rest by a pronouncement of a larger Bench.
( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A.
( 5 ) IT was argued by learned counsel for the applicant that formerly this Court had been granting bail on the ground of parity. In this connection, our attention was drawn to Ram Roop v. State of U. P. 3. In this case, it was observed that as a co-accused having role similar to the applicant in that case was granted bail, the applicant should also be granted bail.
( 6 ) THE next case, in which reliance was placed, is Sobha Ram v. State of U. P. (supra ). In this case, Honble V. N. Mehrotra, J. had observed that it was not at all obligatory upon the counsel of an applicant-accused to indicate that the application of a co-accused had been rejected. The Honble Judge had referred to Ali Husain v. State of U. P. 4 in which Hontble S. K. Dhaon, J. had placed reliance on Kalloo v. State of U. P. : 1989 A WC 65. In Kalloos case the desirability of consistency in matter of sentence was considered. It is not applicable to the matter of bail.
( 7 ) LEARNED counsel had also placed reliance on Sanwal Das Gupta v. State of U. P. 5 in which Honble D. N. Jha, J. had observed that where a bail was granted to a co-accused, then the Magistrate can in view of maintaining parity admit the co-accused to bail provided he offers himself to be bailed out. 7a. Hadi v. State of U. P. 6. was also cited by learned counsel for applicant. This is a very short judgment of Honble P. Dayal, J. In this case, the applicant was bailed out on the ground that theco-accused had been bailed out earlier. The facts of the case have not been stated in the judgment. Hence it is not of much help to the applicant.
( 8 ) OUR attention was drawn to Kesho Ram v. State of Assam7. In this case, the offence was alleged against the applicant falling under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The bail was granted by the Sessions Judge, but it was cancelled by the High Court mainly for the reason that the appellant had simultaneously moved for ba
